Friday, November 4, 2016

Is “Their Eyes Were Watching God” Feminist?

The question posed in the title is quite the difficult one. There are reasons to vouch both ways. One could argue that the novel carries a strong feminist dialogue from the very get-go, with the imagery of Janie walking into town in her overalls, without the man that she left with, and with a sense of dignity emanating from her. During parts of the book, Janie strongly believes that she does not need a man to complete her, such as right after the death of her second husband, Joe, and her third husband, Tea Cake. After a big fight with Jody, Janie thinks to herself “Why must Joe be so mad with her for making him look so small when he did it to her all the time? Had been doing it for years.” The way I see it, this quote is very powerful, because it helps shed light on a problem between the relationship between men and women in a way that Jody could not see it.
            However, for every empowering, feminist idea that can be found in the novel, there are many equally oppressive ideas that can be found in the book. For instance, the ideas that Janie’s first two husbands have for who she should be are startlingly possible. For instance, Logan seems to think that the point of a woman’s existence is to make the life of her husband easier, as can be seen when he tells Janie “If Ah kin haul de wood heah and chop it fuh yuh, look lak you oughta be able tuh tote it inside. Mah fust wife never bothered me ‘bout choppin’ no wood nohow. She’d grab dat ax and sling chips lak uh man. You done been spoilt rotten.” Another negative influential man that comes into Janie’s life is Joe, who also has sexist ideals, although they are quite different than those of Logan. Joe thinks that “A pretty doll-baby lak you is made to sit on de front porch and rock and fan yo’self and eat p’taters dat other folks plant just special for you.” This is also problematic, being a push very far into the other direction, with the idea that women are too fragile to be doing a “man’s” work, and that they are meant to be a sort of belonging of their husbands.

            In the end, I would say that when Tea Cake comes around and swoops Janie out of her old life, the novel is really affirmed as a feminist book. After all, in the only relationship of Janie’s that is idolized, the man and the woman are seen more as equals, who pay respects to each other’s wishes. While there are some negative, seemingly awful things about the relationship, such as the beating of Janie, it seems that the positive far outweigh the negative, as both people are content and happy in their relationship. 

6 comments:

  1. While I agree on the fact that Janie's first two relationships were most certainly misogynistic, I think that Tea Cake and Janie's relationship isn't meant to show the ideal feminist relationship, while although Tea Cake and Janie seem equal, the fact that he beats her kind of shows us that their relationship isn't completely ideal. I think the moment that Janie is finally free of any of her past relationships is when she really breaks free from patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While Tea Cake does beat Janie, I think that we can see their relationship as the start of her feminism because Hurston stresses that Janie is perfectly content to manage the store for the rest of her life independantly and so her marriage with Tea Cake is clearly for love, rather than economic or social gain -- as was so common in the 1920s and 30s. Also, I don't think Hurston's aim was to present them as the ideal femininst relationship, but depict Janie as a realistic feminist character who does have moments where she struggles against patriarchy but whose perseverance can give women in the 1920s a believable -- rather than idealized -- role model.

      Delete
  2. I think a hugely significant point to look at when considering the question you posed in the title is the position Janie ends up in at the end of the novel. Despite all the oppression and dissatisfaction she faced from her husbands as a result of her corrupt relationships, Janie ends up satisfied at the end of a novel without a man. This fact in itself vouches for the point you make in your last paragraph, that the good aspect of her relationships outweigh the bad. We can consider this in conjunction with the fact the Janie appears empowered and independent at the end of the novel, supporting your claim that the novel leans towards the feminist side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel like Janie's happiness at the end of the novel isn't because she is single and independent, but because she has had the perfect loving relationship that she longed for since her revelation with the pear tree, which makes me think that the novel is not about her being happier alone, but about how she finds her perfect man.

      Delete
  3. While I think there are many ways to answer this question, I think that we have to look at the novel as a whole. Janie's first two relationships began because her grandmother valued Janie's protection. Despite this, Janie was very unhappy. Only when Janie stopped looking for men was she able to be part of a relationship that made her truly happy, even though it's clear that this relationship is not completely perfect. I can understand the argument that since so much emphasis is put on the relationship in which Janie is treated fairly well, the book advocates for feminism. I think the book acknowledges many instances of women being treated unfairly, but doesn't really speak to this very much, ultimately focusing more on the love story.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If something is argued to be feminist, I don't know if it can be through the relationships she's been in. They certainly affect how she sees herself and what she "can and can't do," but I think the broader feminist point Hurston is making is Janie finally being okay on her own. She's been through a lot, good, bad and ugly, and even though the love of her life died, she knows she'll be okay because she has herself. It takes the entire book to get to that point, but some lessons take a long time to learn.

    ReplyDelete